Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Has anyone ever heard of that technique for removing engine oil sludge? Tell me what you think?
I sat in one and was very suprised how hard the seats were. Are they a comfortable ride? My husband has a 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, and the heated leather seats, are softer and very comfortable. I dont want us to have "twin" suv's, that is why I am considering the Montero, plus I like the looks better. any advice or comments on the seats. thanks.
When I first rode in a Cherokee I knew I could never live with those seats. I spend tons of time behind the wheel for my job and I find that Super Soft seats that you sink into like the Jeeps are the WORST for long drives. In fact they are torture for me. They surround your body limiting your ability to move and adjust easily. Also they tend to squeeze your body creating more fatigue and blood flow restrictions.
I always look for a more firm seating surface. You'll find that Premium After Market Seats like Recaro follow the same concept of using firmer surfaces. They actually are proven reduce fatigue and increase long haul comfort. Sounds odd to some but I'm telling you from lots of experience over the years.. it is true. But... everyone is different.
drew
-Mike Howitt
For 4wding the 6 is fine.
Id be interested in having you define what you think the class leader(s) are and in what area(s), as an SUV, you feel the V8 helps them over the Montero. I dont think many of us are too concerned about 0-60 times in an SUV.
I'd much rather see a higher hp V or inline 6. What does the new Envoy have? It's a V6 but I can't remember the output. Somewhere around 240-260. I have driven the Pathfinder which feels very powerful with it's 240hp output 6. Keep your V8's I hated the poor mileage on my last one.
drew
Iguess I meant that I wish the Montero 6 had more torque. I think it would get a little better mileage and tow my trailer a little better not that towing should be the goal of an SUV.
I dont think more power in the Montero will make it better at what it is designed to do, be a mid sized, serious off road SUV with all the comforts of SUV such as the Landcruiser all at almost half the price.
drew
Minor complaint about the service at Anaheim Mitshbishi though. My wife, not realizing that a major service interval had been reached, had the oil changed (not at dealer) on previous Wednesday. On Saturday the service writer said no problem, they would do everything else required at 30,000 miles, fix the glove box latch under warrenty, and subtract the cost of the oil change which it didn't need.
Well they, of course, changed the oil (but didn't charge for it) and didn't fix the glove box latch. Didn't wash it (as is usual when we go in for service), although they are supposed too. "Shorthanded today, bring it back Monday". Yea, right as if we had time. I'm gittin' tired of that excuse.
Oh, well as long as the vehicle has no major problems I don't need good dealer service.
I think I'll send a copy of this to the dealer.
The Long Term Review has been very good, and it noted no stability problem claimed by other consumer media source. The only weaknesses noted was the general loosening of the suspension and wasted space of the dash.
Here is the link to the review:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/longterm/2001montero.shtml
I dont know about the wasted space, what did they mean.
I think there could be some better uses of the existing space such as a GPS system like they have in Europe but I would not give up on my current computer. I also like the two glovebox system.
The Montero is suppose to get a new 3.8 litre V-6 with a few cosmetic changes. The XLS will now come with the Sportronic 5-speed automatic transmission. The 4-speed auto is gone on the Montero. Also they are going to have active-track system.
I think that the best change is to increase the engine displacement a bit, although the MT review doesn't give the particulars about the increase in torque or horsepower. But what is with that new front-end? I much prefer the nose on my 2001 Limited.
One funny thing I noticed in the report was their mention not ONCE but TWICE about the "Gutsy 235hp V6" comparing to V8's in some of the competition. What were they on? I noticed that a third mention of the Horsepower was correct at 200hp but they never corrected that it does NOT accelerate like a V8. I wonder what these guys are used to driving. I think they got this impression wrong.
I'm anxious to see the new 2003 model with its increased power. I may actually replace a vehicle with the same model if they made the improvements I'm hoping for. I've never been happy enough with a vehicle to consider buying it again. That says a LOT.. by this time (50,000 miles) I usually can't wait to dump what I'm driving.
Drew
I'm looking to purchase a '97 Montero LS with all the goodies. I know the tires are prone to misalignment and it's relatively costly to service
(perhaps that's why there seems to be many '97 out there for sale right before reaching 60kmi?).
Anything else I should be looking out for?
Thanks.
JP
Drew
Might as well buy a Sequoia.
Hope this helps.
On the otherhand, this system can work very well on ice covered roads.
The problem is I dont have problems with the Montero now on any roads so why lose some off road ability to gain marginally in situations that are currently not difficult to handle?
Now, if they use only the braking portion and not go as far as the Sequoia went with power reduction if traction is even more difficult then maybe, just maybe, it will work but I would like to see it tested in the sand/mud to be a believer.
I will be suprised if the new V-6 gets more than 20-30hp and that would not be enough for me to "upgrade".
What did you sit in? Must have been the Montero Sport because in two years, I've never heard anyone complain here about lack of room in the full size monty. Maybe this just isn't the vehicle for you. But to answer your question, I have no idea what they did with the interior for 03. Perhapse someone here saw it at the NY Auto Show and can respond.
Drew
I do notice that with different vent settings that there is more/less noise from the outside air at freeway speeds but was not sure anything can be done about this.
It seems that there is a possible windshield noise that can be fixed with ? sealing
-Mike
long term update of the 2001 Montero, Are they implying that the 2001 Montero have 235 hp V6 engine? 2001 Montero's only have 200 hp engine. Maybe they were referring to the torque.
I think the active track is an excellent addition-if Mitsubishi did it right, it will be able to be switched on and off (unlike the Seq.). If it is on full time, than I share brill's concerns, as the active track does appear to severely compromise the vehicle's off road capabilities in certain situations (I've read the article Brill mentions as well--there is a link to it somewhere in the forum, but I am way too lazy to find it). It would be a shame if Mitsu makes it a full-time system, as one of the major plusses is the Monte's outstanding abilities offroad...
Drew is right about the redesign--Mitsu will only tweak here and there, as it is a relatively new design...Has Mitsu addressed rollover issue (or nonissue, depending on your point of view) with the 2003 model?
I am also dubious of the quality of a review that can't even get the optional equipment list right -- why do the Edmunds editors say that an "in-dash CD changer," "auto 4WD" (by which I assume they mean all-wheel drive), "trailer hitch," and "three-point center position seat belt" are "not available," when they are available as options, or, in the case of the three-point center position belt, standard (in the 2002, as opposed to the 2001). Someone did not do their homework.
The only thing the Monte does not do well is tow and as I mature in my assessment of what I should be towing and how to safely do this I keep coming back to an important point. SUV's probably should not be towing anything very large if your goal is safely. Weight, power, wheelbase, suspension capacity, braking capacity on an SUV are fine for just about anything other than towing a larger trailer.
I think a nice sized pick-up is in my future but I will not be giving up my Montero.
I would put the Montero up against any other small, mid and even most full sized SUV even if the study included road handling.
Personally, I think CU put in the roll over article to devalue the Montero so they could all run out and buy one even cheaper because they knew they were excellent SUV
But Edmund is right about the Montero needs more power.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
That's easy to respond to. SUV's are practical because they are truly multipurpose vehicles. Lots of people like me need an SUV for their work. I need the cargo room and weight capacities. A Mini Van provides the cargo room but they usually lack the other requirements to hold up over the long haul. That's why on road performance is an important characteristic.
It's easy to build a capible Off Road Vehicle these days if you think about it.. The challenge is to engineer one that performs off road but still provides comfort for for use as an everyday driver.
Plus you need to consider this: How many people can afford to buy a vehicle JUST for off-road ability and another for everyday use. Would you like driving a Hummer for your daily commute and errands? Not me? The Monty will do just fine thanks. Build a Monty only for off road and no comfort on road and they will cease to exist IMO. I don't believe they would sell the volume required to justify it.
Drew